Ever since they won the House majority in 
1994, House Republican leaders have emphasized that they rise-or 
fall-as a team. That claim has sometimes been tested, 
particularly during the tenure of Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., 
who led his ranks on a roller-coaster ride of triumphant highs, 
occasional hairpin turns, and death-defying plummets into the 
political abyss. But now, House Republicans are gushing that 
their approach has paid off: They are largely attributing their 
historic electoral success on November 5 to the fact that they 
signed on two years ago as loyal members of Team Bush. 

In interviews, House Republicans said that President 
Bush's high public-approval ratings, his chief initiatives of the 
war on terrorism and last year's tax cut, and his tireless 
campaigning for their party's candidates were decisive in the 
election. "If you ask me one significant factor, it's the 
president's popularity at this point, and his active engagement 
on his agenda," said Rep. Tom Davis of Virginia, the chairman of 
the National Republican Congressional Committee. And Republican lawmakers say that Bush's willingness to 
extend himself on their behalf is certain to produce legislative 
dividends. "No Republican president in my lifetime ever has put 
all his chips on the table to help our team as [Bush] has," said 
Rep. John A. Boehner, R-Ohio, the chairman of the House Education 
and the Workforce Committee. "It will make a big difference in 
the eagerness of House and Senate Republicans to assist the 
president." 

House Republicans maintain that, for all their loyalty, 
they won't necessarily rubber-stamp whatever Bush requests. 
Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., will continue to be "an honest 
broker" for GOP members in dealing with the administration, said 
a House Republican source. But top administration strategists are 
confident that, in return for Bush's extraordinary political 
cooperation, GOP legislators will pay considerable attention to 
the White House's concerns. Davis said that if Bush calls for 
Social Security reform, for example, "we will be happy to have 
that discussion with him." 

Before Election Day, House Republicans held 223 seats, or 
a six-seat majority. That gave small clusters of GOP members 
virtual veto power over the details of controversial presidential 
initiatives. With their election gain, however, Republican 
leaders have a bit more breathing room and leverage in dealing 
with competing factions. At press time, it appeared that the 
House in the 108th Congress would have 228 Republicans, 204 
Democrats, and one independent who usually votes with the 
Democrats. Depending on the outcome of a contest in Colorado that 
was too close to call, and another in Louisiana that will require 
a runoff, House Republican seats could grow to 230, which was 
precisely their high-water mark following the pivotal 1994 
election. 

House Democrats, by contrast, emerged from the election 
as anything but a team. Reeling from the latest blow at the 
ballot box and searching for answers, they now face the need to 
replace their party leader, Rep. Richard A. Gephardt, D-Mo., who 
had exercised strong command during their eight years in 
legislative exile. Gephardt's plan to relinquish his post as 
minority leader was hardly unexpected by House insiders. But his 
departure was marked by unusual public criticism of his actions 
by some party members. And other senior Democrats launched a 
caustic contest to succeed him. 

Forced to explain election results worse than they had 
expected, some Democratic strategists said there was little they 
could have done, given Bush's stature and the national mood. 
"This election was a referendum on a popular wartime president, 
and the wind was in our face," said Rep. Nita M. Lowey, D-N.Y., 
chairwoman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. 
"Thus far, voters have concluded that September 11 caused the 
economic downturn we are dealing with now. Voters haven't blamed 
Republicans for the economy-yet." 

But, reflecting a level of disarray, some discouraged 
Democrats were quick to identify causes-including themselves-for 
their election failures. "There's no question the Democrats 
didn't present a crisp enough difference" between the parties, 
especially on "quality of life" issues, said Rep. Benjamin 
Cardin, D-Md. And Rep. Robert T. Matsui, D-Calif., complained: 
"We just didn't get it together. First it was prescription drugs, 
then Social Security, then corporate governance. We hopped around 
from one issue to the next." 

Democrats have struggled to replace the advantage of 
commanding the bully pulpit during the eight years of the Clinton 
presidency. "I've heard my leader [Gephardt] be very passionate 
when he's talking to the troops," said Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D- 
Ill. "But that's different than being willing to devise a 
national strategy." 

Republican Rigor 
House rules give presidents the opportunity for expedited action 
in that chamber, in contrast to the often balky and talky Senate. 
The House's legislative efficiency was balm to Bush's tax-cut 
proposal during the president's early months in office. 

Moreover, even with their narrow majority, House 
Republicans have achieved consensus on most major issues during 
the past two years-with the notable exception of this year's 
appropriations gridlock. Piling up the House-passed bills on the 
Senate's doorstep was integral to the GOP's persistent attack on 
Senate Majority Leader Thomas A. Daschle, D-S.D., for blocking 
legislative action, according to Terry Holt, spokesman for 
retiring House Majority Leader Dick Armey, R-Texas. 

"We've been steady with our message. It's been easy to 
figure out what we are for," said Holt. "Even though it's not 
been a national campaign, voters have a better idea of what 
Republicans stand for than with the Democrats.... One party 
defined the agenda, while the other was 'me, too.' " 

Republicans found it particularly helpful that Democrats 
were unable to coalesce around a national message of criticizing 
the Bush tax cut; many moderate-to-conservative Democrats in 
competitive campaigns voted for the tax cut last year. "We were 
never in position to get unanimity among Democrats" on tax cuts, 
which created disincentives for a possible partisan response, 
acknowledged Howard Wolfson, the DCCC's executive director. GOP 
insiders said that the paralysis among both House and Senate 
Democrats prevented them from rallying behind a uniform budget 
alternative-and it fueled Republicans' confidence that they were 
on the right political track. 

Rep. Nancy L. Johnson, R-Conn.-who survived a 
redistricting-forced challenge from Rep. James H. Maloney, D- 
Conn.-said that she and other GOP moderates have been able to 
rely on their party leaders to protect their interests. "When we 
first took the majority [in 1994], there was a feeling among 
conservatives that, over time, they could construct a majority 
that's in their image," Johnson said. "But it's become clear that 
there are regional differences." 

Johnson praised House Majority Whip Tom DeLay, R-Texas, 
who is set to take over as majority leader in the new Congress, 
for responding to GOP members who have objected to debating some 
measures. "I have confidence in Tom DeLay, because he listens to 
the moderates," Johnson said. "When you're in the leadership, you 
cannot run your own agenda. You have to run an agenda that 
reflects the views of the Caucus." 

GOP leaders have insisted that they have not demanded 
lockstep uniformity from their members. In fact, Rep. Jim Leach, 
R-Iowa, bolstered his once-faltering re-election campaign this 
fall when he spoke out against the congressional resolution to 
back Bush's use of military force in Iraq. "The voters 
appreciated it," Davis said. 

Democratic Disarray 
It didn't take long after the election for House Democrats to 
start reassessing their situation. By nightfall on November 6, 
several media outlets, citing unnamed sources, were reporting 
that Gephardt planned to announce the next day that he would step 
down as party leader, a move that had been expected among House 
Democrats for months. Soon after, Democratic Caucus Chairman 
Martin Frost of Texas issued a statement that praised Gephardt's 
service to the party and announced his candidacy for the 
position. And soon after that, Minority Whip Nancy Pelosi, D- 
Calif., issued a similar statement of her own. 

Earlier on November 6, some Democrats-including supposed 
Gephardt allies-said that it was time for him to step down and 
that his successor should be someone who would more actively 
consult the Democratic Caucus in reaching important decisions. 
"It's obvious that we need some fresh faces and, in some cases, 
fresh ideas," Rep. Harold E. Ford Jr., D-Tenn., said on Don 
Imus's national radio show. 

Many Democrats remained bitter that Gephardt had worked 
with White House officials this fall to craft a resolution on 
Iraq that supported the administration's position. A Democratic 
member commented that, with Gephardt's interest in a possible 
presidential candidacy, "we need to move beyond the uncertainty." 

The contest shaping up between Pelosi and Frost for 
minority leader poses a stark choice for House Democrats. Allies 
view the more liberal Pelosi as dynamic and media-savvy, and they 
contend that she has superior skills in dealing with people. "She 
would make a very exciting and charismatic leader, and that's 
what we need," Schakowsky said. "Someone who is very clear and 
unapologetic." 

Foes, however, contend that Pelosi lacks the requisite 
experience and political judgment for the top leadership post. 
They note, for instance, that a few months ago, a California ally 
set up a new political action committee in Pelosi's name to 
collect and distribute campaign funds. But when it was reported 
that the new PAC's activities apparently duplicated those of an 
existing Pelosi PAC and thus might be illegal, the Pelosi camp 
shut it down. Others from outside California have questioned 
whether Pelosi and other Democratic members of the state's 
delegation made questionable political judgments last year in 
cutting a bipartisan deal on redistricting. 

Separately, some House Democrats were angered-and 
baffled-by Pelosi's decision to side with Rep. Lynn Rivers when 
redistricting forced Rivers to run, unsuccessfully, in the 
Michigan Democratic primary this summer against Rep. John D. 
Dingell, the dean of the House and the senior Democrat on the 
Energy and Commerce Committee. 

Frost, too, brings potential strengths and weaknesses to 
a leadership bid. He has had longer service than Pelosi in 
Democratic leadership offices, including four years as DCCC 
chairman, plus lengthy experience working with Democratic members 
across the nation on redistricting battles as chairman of IMPAC 
2000. Like Pelosi, Frost is a ranking Democrat on a House 
committee; he serves on Rules, while she has held the top slot at 
the Permanent Select Intelligence panel. Both Frost and Pelosi 
have been active party fundraisers for many years, raising many 
millions of dollars annually for various party activities. 

Critics contend that Frost is a more plodding persona, 
and that he would bring less skill as a party spokesman to 
outside groups; the need for such outreach may be greater now 
that Democrats' legislative influence has been weakened by the 
election results. As a Rules Committee member, Frost has focused 
his legislative activities chiefly on the nuts and bolts of House 
procedure, rather than on major policy initiatives. 

In addition, Frost-like Gephardt-supported the resolution 
authorizing force in Iraq, unexpectedly landing him in the 
minority among House Democrats, and at odds with Pelosi and the 
party's more-liberal members. Pelosi supporters contend that she 
will defeat Frost easily in a Caucus showdown, which is scheduled 
to take place by secret ballot on November 14. 

Meanwhile, in a move designed to foment further 
Democratic divisions, House Republicans in recent days have 
raised the possibility that one or more Democratic members might 
seek to switch parties-partly because of the internal divisions 
made evident by the Pelosi-Frost contest. Of the GOP's several 
prime targets, most are from the South. For moderate Democrats, 
the leadership choice "will have implications on which way they 
go," Davis said. Voicing some concern, the DCCC's Wolfson said 
that the potential loss of party switchers is "obviously 
something the leadership has to worry about."